I'm no atheist

May 4, 2004

Dear Sir,

A. Medeiros is quite off the mark in his response to my letter. In the first place I am not an atheist.

Second, “May the Church rule!” is an unconstitutional attack on Bermuda's democratic system of government.

Third, the Bible does not tell A. Madeiros to be against gay marriage, the Roman church has convinced him or her, wrongly, that that is what the Bible says.

Finally there will never be human/animal marriages for the same reason that no contract of any kind can be made with an animal - agreement is lacking.

It is sad to see how those who have been brainwashed by a church so readily to give up their powers of reason. However, I defend A. Madeiros' right to believe whatever he or she is fed by the Roman Catholic Church. I absolutely deny his or her right to impose his beliefs on me. So does our constitution.

UNEQUAL

City of Hamilton

History repeats itself

May 9, 2004

Dear Sir,

Your edition of yesterday included a large insert entitled ‘Holocaust: We Are Witnesses'. It is to be a ‘companion piece' to an upcoming exhibition of ‘Anne Frank, A History for Today'. In general it is a reminder of a horrible Dark-Ages-style genocide carried out only 60-odd years ago by a supposedly cultured people on an equally cultured people. Some six million Jews were murdered in cold blood, one horror of many instigated by the Germans in the brutally mechanised process of killing off, one way or another, some 60 million people in the Second World War.

The Germans had several objectives. To oversimplify, one was to seize for themselves ‘lebensraum' or living space in the world, with all the natural resources therein. The Poles, Slavs, Czechs, Russians, Latvians, Lithuanians etc., whose land it was, and who somehow survived the onslaught, might exist as serfs or leave. Remaining Gypsies, Jews and the handicapped, among other undesirables, would be exterminated. In the process, millions of refugees fleeing the armoured columns and burning villages starved in the freezing forests of eastern Europe because there was no organisation, such as the UN of today, to step in. It was a frightful time in which to live or die.

The message, as set out in the insert, was to be ‘never again'. Of course this has been a hollow call, as the insert says, as there have been Kosovos, Cambodias, Rwandas and much other victimisation since, where hundred of thousands have been killed outright, or driven off homelands of centuries past, the lucky few into refugee camps supported nowadays by UN and other handouts. Nevertheless, some of today's displaced refugees do survive, and do not forget the victimisation they endure. There can be no forgetting or forgiving, only a deep abiding determination to achieve retribution.

Paradoxically regarding your insert, the most famous refugee camps of today, not mentioned in the insert, are those filled with the peoples of Palestine driven off their lands by those in search of living space in the world, or as the Germans called it ‘lebensraum'. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, this usurpation of their land is backed by the Judeo-Christian belief that some of the area occupied is the ‘Promised Land', the land promised by the occupiers' God several thousand years ago. Unfortunately, the people who lived there for centuries disagree, and their God does too, and many have their property deeds to prove it. However, like the Poles and Gypsies, and the Jews of Europe at the time of the Holocaust, there is little they can do against ruthlessness, money, armour, gunships and tanks. It may be that the point of the insert is an attempt to rekindle the sympathy that the civilised world undoubtedly felt for the survivors of the Holocaust at the end of the Second World War. That this sympathy has been steadily eroded over the intervening years by the ruthless Israeli military expansion across Palestine is no one's fault but the Israelis. Inserts in newspapers recalling Second World War horrors only serve today as reminders of not the Holocaust, but the modern repetition going on day by day, ad nauseam, against a basically unarmed people, driven off their land into arid camps where there is still no respite from lethal mechanised attack, and to blowing themselves and their occupiers up as their only recourse.

OBSERVER

St. George's

Tee Street origins

This was sent to the Permanent Secretary of Works & Engineering and copied to The Royal Gazette.

April 26, 2004

Dear Sir,

Re: Origin of the name “Tee Street”.

For many years I have had the feeling that, in some way, the name of Tee Street, Devonshire might have been associated with my grandfather Thomas Alpheus Jones (November 11, 1860 - December 15, 1949) but never had proof of this. He lived nearby at “The Gables”, 3 Gables Lane and was affectionately known to his friends as “Thompsie” and to others simply as “TA”.

Recently, in a conversation with Mrs. Joyce Hall, a very well-known local historian, I made mention of my grandfather in relation to another matter. Mrs. Hall quickly said words to this effect “You mean Thompsie Jones who has the (old) grocery store at the bottom of Thompsie's Hill” which is the junction of Tee Street and South Road. Over time Thompsie's Hill was shortened to T Hill and later to Tee Street. His grocery store is now the office of East End Asphalt Co.

I wanted to know how Mrs. Hall knew of this and she told me that she lived at “Monterey”, South Road in Paget when she was first married. She not only knew my grandfather personally as the nearest grocer to her home but also was well acquainted with the use of the name “Thompsie's Hill” which today is known simply as “Tee Street”.

While speaking with family members about this discovery I was surprised to learn from my nephew, Michael Jones, that a Mr. Harold Williams with whom Michael had worked some years ago also has spoken to him about “Thompsie ‘s Hill”. This arose from chatter at Gorham's Carpentry Shop where once they both worked as carpenters. When Mr. Williams learned that Michael was the great grandson of Thomas Alpheus Jones he came forth with many stories including the point that today's “Tee Street” was once known as “Thompsie ‘s Hill”.

Since much discussion and guessing has been had over the years pertaining to the origin of the name “Tee Street”, including possible origins from the “Tea Rose”, I thought it appropriate to try to set the record straight at this time.

J. HUBERT JONES

Insult to Bermudians

April 23, 2004

Dear Sir,

Calvin Smith outlines both the difference between democracy and Independence, and the interdependencies of each to each other in your ‘Opinion' column. He argues that the issues are so complicated that Independence should be decided by General Election. His rationale continues that a referendum is not the place to decide such a complicated issue. A General Election is by its nature a complicated affair. It is a time when many pressing issues are put on the table and each are complicated otherwise they would not be issues. Why would you further complicate the process by adding another complicated issued to the mix. Very simply to complicate the issues even more and confuse the voters with distractions, and get a yes vote for some hidden agenda item that you know would be unacceptable on its own merits. This is an old, tired and devious trick used by all governments to hide an unpalatable issue.

Independence is a huge issue by itself. No other issue is as important for the future of all Bermudians. Many example abound in the Caribbean that demonstrate what a mistake independence can be.

A referendum by its nature allows the voter to concentrate on one issue, with all its complications, without distraction. What an ideal way to make such a far reaching decision. And heaven forbid, what a democratic way to treat the voters. Remember that most referendums require a 75 percent majority in favour rather than a 52 percent popular vote as at the last election. What an emphatic way of saying yes if 75 percent of the voters said “Yes”.

The fact that the PLP and Calvin Smith do not want a referendum only raises suspicion as to their motives as they clearly do not want to hear the will of the vast majority of people. Rather they want to muddy the waters so you do not know what you are voting for. Or worse, and by stealth, you end up voting for something you do not want.

Certainly they lack the courage to trust the intelligence of Bermudians, and that in itself is an insult.

PHIL CRACKNELL